CIT v. Smt. P. K. Noorjahan

237 ITR 570Supreme Court of India1999#251 most cited

What is CIT v. Smt. P. K. Noorjahan authority for?

An unsatisfactory explanation for an amount credited in the books does not automatically result in it being deemed as the assessee's income under Section 68. The initial onus is on the assessee to prove the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the transaction.

308

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 367,154 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Smt P K Noorjahan · CIT v Smt P K Noorjahan · 237 ITR 570 · Section 68 · Section 69 · cash credit · unexplained money · burden of proof · onus of proof · unsatisfactory explanation · deemed income · identity creditworthiness genuineness

Also reported as

103 Taxmann 382150 Taxmann.com 301155 CTR 509

Sections most often in play

Section 69ASection 143(3)Section 115BBESection 147Section 148Section 68Section 132Section 69

Issues it is cited on

creditworthiness of the creditorsection 132(4a)loose papersaddition under section 68unexplained moneysection 69section 158unexplained investmentsection 158bsection 115bbsection 131section 115bbe

Judgments citing CIT v. Smt. P. K. Noorjahan

Shri Babu Lal Data, Alwar vs. DCIT, Central Circle, Alwar

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1222/JPR/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur05 May 2022AY 2015-16
For Appellant: Sh. P. C. Parwal, CAFor Respondent: S. Naiyer Ali Najmi, CIT
Section 127Section 132Section 139Section 153A

…e, the deeming provisions of s. 69 cannot be invoked in this case. For making addition under s 69, there ought to be some material to prove that outgoings taken by the borrowers belonged to the assessee CIT vs. Smt PK. Noorjahan (1999) 155 CTR (SC) 509 (1999) 237 ITR 570 (SC) relied on. Where certain document is found in the search from the premises of the assessee then a presumption is drawn under s 132(4A) that transactions recorded therein belonged to the assessee. But such presumption is not absolute. Presumption under s. 132(4A) is rebuttable as the words used in the section are "it may be presumed". It is…

ACIT 13 (3)(2), Mumbai vs. Vyapar Industries Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 7159/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Mar 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Amarjit Singh () Assessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: Mr. Satyapraksh Singh, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Achal Sharma, CIT-DR
Section 106Section 132Section 143(3)Section 150Section 153ASection 153CSection 292C

…Ltd 99 ITD 177 Delhi 6. Harish Daulatram Innani v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax(Inv), Cir. 11(1), Mumbai (2008] 24 SOT 541 (Mumbai) 7. K P Verghese v ITO 24 CTR 358 (SC) 8. P. R. Metrani vs. CIT (2006) 287 ITR 209 SC 9. CIT vs. Smt. P. K. Nooriahan 1999 237 ITR 570 (SC) 10. CBI Vs. V. C. Shukla & Ors. (1998) 3SCE 410 The gist submitted by the assessee of some of the cases is an under:- 1. Bhajan Das & Bros v. ACIT (2009] 119 ITD 76 ITAT (THIRD MEMBER) (Agra) In a search conducted under section 132 at residences of partners of assessee-firm on 22-2-2003, certain papers were seized from residence of 'N' -…

Kalaneedhi Jewellers LLP, Patiala vs. DCIT-CC, Patiala

In the result, appeals of both the assesses are allowed

ITA 311/CHANDI/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh25 Mar 2022AY 2017-18
For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Priyanka Dhar, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)

…ITR 250 (SC) • Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills; SC in 87 ITR 349 (SC) • Shaw and Bros. vs. CIT (1959) 37 ITR 271 (SC) • CIT vs Kamdhenu Steel and Alloys Ltd. 248 CTR 33 (Del.) • Infomediary India (P) Ltd. and Ors. Vs CIT 206 Taxman 254 • CIT vs. Smt. P. K. Noorjahan 237 ITR 570 (SC) 6.3 It was stated before the Ld. CIT(A) that the A.O. had not disputed, the entire purchase and sales of the assessee, books of accounts, cash memo, purchase details, confirmations, bank statements, expenses, parties from whom the purchase and to whom sales were made but he merely on assumption or presumption or surmises or conjectures had…

Ssmt. Charu Aggarwal, Patiala vs. DCIT-CC, Patiala

In the result, appeals of both the assesses are allowed

ITA 310/CHANDI/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh25 Mar 2022AY 2017-18
For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Priyanka Dhar, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)

…ITR 250 (SC) • Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills; SC in 87 ITR 349 (SC) • Shaw and Bros. vs. CIT (1959) 37 ITR 271 (SC) • CIT vs Kamdhenu Steel and Alloys Ltd. 248 CTR 33 (Del.) • Infomediary India (P) Ltd. and Ors. Vs CIT 206 Taxman 254 • CIT vs. Smt. P. K. Noorjahan 237 ITR 570 (SC) 6.3 It was stated before the Ld. CIT(A) that the A.O. had not disputed, the entire purchase and sales of the assessee, books of accounts, cash memo, purchase details, confirmations, bank statements, expenses, parties from whom the purchase and to whom sales were made but he merely on assumption or presumption or surmises or conjectures had…

Sejal Jewellers Pvt. Ltd., Surat vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1)(2), Surat

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 435/AHD/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat28 Feb 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shripawan Singh, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.435/Ahd/2017 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2012-13) (Virtual Court Hearing) Sejal Jewellers Pvt. Ltd, Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1)(2), V Ug-4/5 Rangila Park, Ghod Dod Surat, Aaykar Bhavan, Majura Gate, S. Road, Surat-395007 Surat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaqcs 8686 P (Appellant ) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Rasesh Shah, CAFor Respondent: Shri H.P. Meena– CIT-DR
Section 131Section 131(1)(d)Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 68

…"shall". Thus, the un-satisfactoriness of the explanation does not and need not automatically result in deeming the amount credited in the books as the income of the assessee as also held by the Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Smt. P. K. Noorjahan [1999] 237 ITR 570. The main plank on which the AO made the addition was because all the directors of the share subscribers did not turn up before him. In our view, this approach of the AO is not correct. It is noted that the all the documents were furnished before the AO which substantiated the transaction between the assessee ITA No.435/AHD/2017 A.Y. 2012-13 Seja…

Ranjit Singh, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward-65(2), New Delhi

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4032/DEL/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Feb 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year: 2008-09

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

…1 Ranjit Singh Vs. ITO IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “SMC”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER [Assessment Year: 2008-09 Ranjit Singh, Vs Income-tax Officer, A-801, Crescent Apartments, Ward-65(2), New Delhi. Plot no. 2, Sector 18-A, Dwarka, New Delhi-110078 PAN- AICPS2748H APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by None Respondent by Sh. Sanjay Kumar, Sr. DR Date of hearing 22.02.2022 Date of pronouncement 22.02.2022 O R D E R PER KUL BHARAT, JM: This appeal, by the assessee, is directed against the order of the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-32, New Delhi, dated 08.0…

Mgm Minerals Ltd., Bhubaneswar vs. DCIT, Corporate Circle-1(1), Bhubaneswar

In the result, for A.Y. 2010-11 Cross appeals in ITANo

ITA 278/CTK/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack05 Jan 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri Manish Borad, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita No.420/Ctk/2015 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2010-2011) Mgm Minerals Limited Vs Jcit-Range-1, 2-A, Forest Park Bhubaneswar Bhubaneswar-751009 Pan No. : Aadcm2818E (अऩीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ..

For Appellant: Shri B.K. Mahapatra & A.K. Sobat, ARsFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam, CIT-DR

…आयकर अपीऱीय अधिकरण, कटक न्यायपीठ, कटक IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CUTTACK BENCH, CUTTACK BEFORE SHRI C.M. GARG, JM & SHRI MANISH BORAD, AM आयकर अपीऱ सं./ITA No.420/CTK/2015 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2010-2011) MGM Minerals Limited Vs JCIT-Range-1, 2-A, Forest Park Bhubaneswar Bhubaneswar-751009 PAN No. : AADCM2818E (अऩीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. आयकर अपीऱ सं./ITA No.408/CTK/2015 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2010-2011) DCIT-Circle 2(1), Vs MGM Minerals Limited 2-A, Forest Park Bhubaneswar Bhubaneswar-751009 PAN No. : AADCM2818E (अऩीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ..…

Mgm Minerals Limited, Bhubaneswar vs. JCIT, Bhubaneswar

In the result, for A.Y. 2010-11 Cross appeals in ITANo

ITA 420/CTK/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack05 Jan 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri Manish Borad, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita No.420/Ctk/2015 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2010-2011) Mgm Minerals Limited Vs Jcit-Range-1, 2-A, Forest Park Bhubaneswar Bhubaneswar-751009 Pan No. : Aadcm2818E (अऩीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ..

For Appellant: Shri B.K. Mahapatra & A.K. Sobat, ARsFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam, CIT-DR

…आयकर अपीऱीय अधिकरण, कटक न्यायपीठ, कटक IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CUTTACK BENCH, CUTTACK BEFORE SHRI C.M. GARG, JM & SHRI MANISH BORAD, AM आयकर अपीऱ सं./ITA No.420/CTK/2015 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2010-2011) MGM Minerals Limited Vs JCIT-Range-1, 2-A, Forest Park Bhubaneswar Bhubaneswar-751009 PAN No. : AADCM2818E (अऩीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. आयकर अपीऱ सं./ITA No.408/CTK/2015 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2010-2011) DCIT-Circle 2(1), Vs MGM Minerals Limited 2-A, Forest Park Bhubaneswar Bhubaneswar-751009 PAN No. : AADCM2818E (अऩीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ..…

DCIT, Bhubaneswar vs. M/S. Mgm Minerals Ltd., Bhubaneswar

In the result, for A.Y. 2010-11 Cross appeals in ITANo

ITA 408/CTK/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack05 Jan 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri Manish Borad, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita No.420/Ctk/2015 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2010-2011) Mgm Minerals Limited Vs Jcit-Range-1, 2-A, Forest Park Bhubaneswar Bhubaneswar-751009 Pan No. : Aadcm2818E (अऩीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ..

For Appellant: Shri B.K. Mahapatra & A.K. Sobat, ARsFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam, CIT-DR

…आयकर अपीऱीय अधिकरण, कटक न्यायपीठ, कटक IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CUTTACK BENCH, CUTTACK BEFORE SHRI C.M. GARG, JM & SHRI MANISH BORAD, AM आयकर अपीऱ सं./ITA No.420/CTK/2015 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2010-2011) MGM Minerals Limited Vs JCIT-Range-1, 2-A, Forest Park Bhubaneswar Bhubaneswar-751009 PAN No. : AADCM2818E (अऩीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. आयकर अपीऱ सं./ITA No.408/CTK/2015 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2010-2011) DCIT-Circle 2(1), Vs MGM Minerals Limited 2-A, Forest Park Bhubaneswar Bhubaneswar-751009 PAN No. : AADCM2818E (अऩीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ..…

Rubberwala Hospitality Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 5 (3)91), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 299/MUM/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Nov 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Shri Mani Jain, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Raghuveer Madana, D.R
Section 132Section 133(6)Section 143Section 143(1)Section 68

…and not "shall. Thus the un-satisfactoriness of the explanation does not and need not automatically result in deeming the amount credited in the books as the income of the assessee as held by the Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Smt. P. K. Noorjahan [1999] 237 ITR 570. 7.12 The Hon'ble ITAT Mumbai in the case of ITO vs Anand Shelters Pvt. Ltd. (2012) 20 Taxmann.com 153 has enumerated certain principles which would be extremely M/s. Rubberwala Hospitality Pvt. Ltd useful in understanding the issue in hand. It has been stated in the said judgment that over the years, law regarding cash credits have evolved and h…

Shri Sunil Mathur, Kota vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2-4, Kota

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 660/JPR/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur01 Nov 2021AY 2014-15
For Appellant: Sh. Mahendra Gargieya (Adv.)For Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary (JCIT)
Section 143(3)Section 147

…scretion has been conferred upon the AO to be exercised judiciously but he is not always obliged to make the addition if the explanation is not found 10 Sh. Sunil Mathur, Kota Vs. ITO, Ward-2(4), Kota satisfactory. Kindly refer CIT v/s P. K. Noorjahan (1999) 237 ITR 570 (SC). It was accordingly submitted that the addition so made and confirmed by the ld CIT(A) be deleted and necessary relief be provided to the assessee. 14. Per contra, the ld DR relied on the findings of the lower authorities and our reference was drawn to the findings of the ld CIT(A) which read as under: “As regards Ground of appeal no 1 it i…

Shri Shyam Gidwani, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-6-1, Jaipur

In the result, the explanation so submitted in support of source of deposit of Rs 6 lacs cannot be accepted and is hereby dismissed

ITA 808/JPR/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur21 Oct 2021AY 2008-09
For Appellant: Shri Mahendra Gargieya (Adv.) &For Respondent: Shri A.S. Nehra (Add.CIT) a
Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 69A

…68, 69 etc. only a discretion has been conferred upon the AO to be exercised judiciously but he is not always obliged to make the addition if the explanation is not found satisfactory. Kindly refer CIT v/s 17 Shri Shyam Gidwani vs. ITO P. K. Noorjahan (1999) 237 ITR 570 (SC). In view of the above facts of availability of sufficient cash, the impugned addition may kindly be deleted in full. 31. Per contra, the ld. DR has relied on the order of the lower authorities and our reference was drawn to the findings of the ld CIT(A) at para 3.3 of her order which read as under:- “3.3 …….It is seen that the AO has accep…

Rajesh Prasad, New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 5353/DEL/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Oct 2021AY 2005-06

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi(Through Video Conferencing) Pramod Kumar Vs. Dcit 13/34, W.E.A. Karol Bagh Central Circle – 4 New Delhi-110 005 New Delhi Pan : Aljpk 6448 A (Appellant) (Respondent) & Rajesh Prasad Vs. Dcit 13/34, W.E.A Karol Bagh Central Circle – 4 New Delhi – 110 005 New Delhi Pan : Aalpr 2566 B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri B. P. Gupta, Adv. Shri Arnav Kumar, Adv. Revenue By Shri R. K. Gupta, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 07.10.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 13.10.2021 Order Per Anil Chaturvedi, Am:

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 148Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘SMC’, NEW DELHI BEFORE SH. ANIL CHATURVEDI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING) Pramod Kumar Vs. DCIT 13/34, W.E.A. Karol Bagh Central Circle – 4 New Delhi-110 005 New Delhi PAN : ALJPK 6448 A (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) And Rajesh Prasad Vs. DCIT 13/34, W.E.A Karol Bagh Central Circle – 4 New Delhi – 110 005 New Delhi PAN : AALPR 2566 B (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) Assessee by Shri B. P. Gupta, Adv. Shri Arnav Kumar, Adv. Revenue by Shri R. K. Gupta, Sr. D.R. Date of hearing: 07.10.2021 Date of Pronouncement: 13.10.2021 ORDER PER ANIL CHATURVEDI, AM: These…

Pramod Kumar, New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 5352/DEL/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Oct 2021AY 2006-07

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi(Through Video Conferencing) Pramod Kumar Vs. Dcit 13/34, W.E.A. Karol Bagh Central Circle – 4 New Delhi-110 005 New Delhi Pan : Aljpk 6448 A (Appellant) (Respondent) & Rajesh Prasad Vs. Dcit 13/34, W.E.A Karol Bagh Central Circle – 4 New Delhi – 110 005 New Delhi Pan : Aalpr 2566 B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri B. P. Gupta, Adv. Shri Arnav Kumar, Adv. Revenue By Shri R. K. Gupta, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 07.10.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 13.10.2021 Order Per Anil Chaturvedi, Am:

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 148Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘SMC’, NEW DELHI BEFORE SH. ANIL CHATURVEDI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING) Pramod Kumar Vs. DCIT 13/34, W.E.A. Karol Bagh Central Circle – 4 New Delhi-110 005 New Delhi PAN : ALJPK 6448 A (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) And Rajesh Prasad Vs. DCIT 13/34, W.E.A Karol Bagh Central Circle – 4 New Delhi – 110 005 New Delhi PAN : AALPR 2566 B (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) Assessee by Shri B. P. Gupta, Adv. Shri Arnav Kumar, Adv. Revenue by Shri R. K. Gupta, Sr. D.R. Date of hearing: 07.10.2021 Date of Pronouncement: 13.10.2021 ORDER PER ANIL CHATURVEDI, AM: These…

Rameshwar Prasad Shringi, Gumanpura vs. Pr.CIT, Udaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 10/JPR/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur23 Sept 2021AY 2016-17
For Appellant: Sh. Mahendra Gargieya (Adv.) &For Respondent: Sh. B. K. Gupta (Pr. CIT)
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES ‘A’ JAIPUR Jh lanhi xkslkbZ] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh foØe flag ;kno] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 10/JP/2021 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year :2016-17 cuke Rameshwar Prasad Shringi Pr. CIT, Vs. 1-B 1-B, Kotri Road Udaipur Gumanpura, Kota, Rajasthan LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No. AGWPS2257F vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Sh. Mahendra Gargieya (Adv.) & Sh. Devang Gargieya (Adv.) jktLo dh vksj ls…

Cauvery Iron & Steel India Limited, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(3), Hyderabad

Appeal is partly allowed in above terms

ITA 288/HYD/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad21 Sept 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri L. P. Sahu(Through Virtual Hearing) M/S. Cauvery Iron & Steel (India) Limited, 60/2, Pam Bazar, Ranigunj, Secunderabad-3. Pan Aabcc 3576F …..Appellant. Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(3), Hyderabad. …..Respondent. Appellant By : Shri P. Murali Mohana Rao. Respondent By : Shri Rohit Majumdar. (D.R.) Date Of Hearing : 16.06.2021. Date Of Pronouncement : 21.09.2021. O R D E R Per Shri S.S. Godara, J.M. : This Assessee’S Appeal For Asst. Year 2011-12 Arises From The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Hyderabad’S Order Dt.10.01.2020 Passed In Case No.10374/Ito-1(3)/Hyd/Cit(A)-1/2019-20 In Proceedings Under Section 143(3) R.W.S. 147 Of Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’).

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohana RaoFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Majumdar. (D.R.)
Section 143(3)Section 147

…s commenced its operations in the previous year and has no worthwhile revenue in either of the years to consider that the company has earned unaccounted money. Judicial principles established by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. P.K. Noorjahan [237 ITR 570] will apply to the facts of the case. Since Revenue failed to place any evidence to support its contentions and as assessee discharged its onus, for the reasons stated above, we find that none of the amounts can be brought to tax as assessee’s unaccounted income in the form of ‘unexplained cash credits’. Following the principles laid down by the…

Kirtiprada Fashions Pvt. Ltd., Surat vs. ITO, Ward -1(1)(3), Surat

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 95/SRT/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat09 Sept 2021AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Shri Ramesh Malpani, FCAFor Respondent: Ms Anupama Singla, Sr. DR
Section 131(1)(d)Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, SURAT BENCH, SURAT BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JM & DR. A. L. SAINI, AM आयकरअपीलसं./ITA No.95/SRT/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2012-13) (Virtual Court Hearing) Kritiprada Fashion Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Block No.41-42, Plot No.1, B/h Ward-1(1)(3), Surat. Garden Vareli, Vill. Vakaneda, Kadodara, Surat-394327. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: AADCK6111E (Assessee) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Ramesh Malpani, FCA Revenue by : Ms Anupama Singla, Sr. DR सुनवाईक"तार"ख/ Date of Hearing : 05/08/2021 घोषणाक"तार"ख/Date of Pronouncement : 09/09/2021 आदेश / O R…

Swarn Gems P Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 473/DEL/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Aug 2021AY 2007-08

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Prashant Maharishi

Section 133(6)Section 68

…) iv) Tola Ram Daga 59 ITR 632 (Asm) v) Suresh Kalmadi 32 TTJ 300 (Pune Tri.) vi) DCIT vs. Anand Prakash Goenka 52 ITD 73 (Cal) vii) ACIT vs. Mohanlal Mishrilal & Sons 52 TTJ 9 (Indore) viii) Labh Chand Bohra vs. ITO 189 Taxman 141 ix) CIT vs. P. K. Noorjahan 237 ITR 570 x) DCIT vs. Rohini Builders 256 ITR 360 (Guj) xi) CIT vs. Gagandeep Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. 94 ITR 680 (Bom) xii) Nova Iron and Steel Ltd. vs. DCIT 60 ITR 355 (Del. Tri.) xiii) Prabhatam Investment Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT 61 ITR 352 (Del. Tri.) xiv) DCIT vs. Machino Techno Sales Pvt. Ltd. 60 ITR 7 (Kol. Tri.) As regards Ground No. 4 relating to Gold…

Smt. Kempanna Shylaja, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 6(3)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1105/BANG/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Jul 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm

For Appellant: Shri L.Maheshkumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Priyadarshi Mishtra, Addl.CIT-DR
Section 54Section 54FSection 68

…of the explanation does not and need not automatically result in 9 ITA No.1105/Bang/2019. Smt.Kempanna Shylaja. deeming the amount credited in the books as the income of the assessee as held by the Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Smt.P.K.Noorjahan (1999) 237 ITR 570 (SC). The word `may’ indicates the intention of the Legislature that a discretion is conferred on the Assessing Officer in the matter of treating the source of investment or credit which had not been satisfactorily explained as income of an assessee, but it is not obligatory to treat such source as income in every case where the explanation offer…

Smt. Uma Agarwal, Gwalior vs. ITO-1(3), Gwalior

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 35/AGR/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Agra18 Jun 2021AY 2017-18

Bench: : Shri Laliet Kumar & Dr. Mitha Lal Meenaassessment Year 2017-18 Smt. Uma Agrawal V.S. I.T.O –1( 3) Baba Kapur Sunaran Ka Mohalla, Gwalior, M.P. Rajaji Ka Bada Gwalior M.P. Pan: Bdppa6915F (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 69A

…In the Income-Tax Appellate Tribunal, Agra Bench, Agra Before : Shri Laliet Kumar, Judicial Member And Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Accountant Member Assessment Year 2017-18 Smt. Uma Agrawal V.S. I.T.O –1( 3) Baba Kapur Sunaran Ka Mohalla, Gwalior, M.P. Rajaji Ka Bada Gwalior M.P. PAN: BDPPA6915F (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by Mr Manuj Sharma Adv and Rajender Sharma adv Respondent by Sh. Mazhar Akram, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 14.06.2021 Date of Pronouncement 18 .06.2021 ORDER Per Laliet Kumar, J.M. This appeal filed by the assessee against the Order dated 25/03/2021 by the National Faceless Appeal Centre, the…